Poll

Which Side of the Ruling Do You Agree With?

I agree with the Ruling.
4 (21.1%)
I do not agree with this Ruling
15 (78.9%)

Total Members Voted: 18

Voting closed: March 06, 2018, 09:11:18 AM

Author Topic: Whose Side You On?  (Read 2580 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ben_Jamin

  • Posts: 15690
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm just a man, thrown into existence by the gods
Re: Whose Side You On?
« Reply #35 on: February 14, 2018, 12:06:51 PM »
So for the folk siding with the building owner, why the hell didn't he ask his lawyer bout the artwork? My hunch is that you don't buy 200 million dollars of property without legal representation. The subject of the graffiti never came up? Understand the situation you're getting yourself into and plan for it. If he's paying 200 mil for the land, isn't it reasonable to set aside a few for the artists if the need should arise? Or work into the deal an agreement with the previous owner to CYA? Or do an evaluation to determine if the graffiti is a good thing for the bottom line? Before we start shedding tears for the developers maybe we should consider if they did their due diligence, because it appears they didn't.

I agree and really have no comment on this specific instance.  If you're buying a building, you need to address this type of stuff in your due diligence.  The owners likely felt that it was just graffiti and didn't look into any laws concerning it's protection. 

My opinion is just a fundamental belief that graffiti is vandalism, period.  It may look pretty, it may be great art, and the people that do it obviously have talent.  But the point is that you've created art on something that you do not own, and therefore, should not have any rights to its ownership or protection - unless there is an agreement in place for you to create it (ala a building mural, where all parties approve of its creation).

For the supplies and time it takes to do a mural, of course you have to have permission from the owner. You'd only get like a round outline of a head done by the time the owner catches you. Mostly all those fantastic murals likely had permission. That is one dumb owner if they don't realize a painting is being done on their wall.
I don't know how they can be so proud of winning with them odds. - Little Big Man
Follow my Spotify:BjamminD

Online jingle.boy

  • I'm so ronery; so sad and ronery
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 44567
  • Gender: Male
  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
Re: Whose Side You On?
« Reply #36 on: February 15, 2018, 11:47:56 AM »
Quote
My opinion is just a fundamental belief that graffiti is vandalism, period.  It may look pretty, it may be great art, and the people that do it obviously have talent.  But the point is that you've created art on something that you do not own, and therefore, should not have any rights to its ownership or protection - unless there is an agreement in place for you to create it (ala a building mural, where all parties approve of its creation).
Which was the case here. It was not vandalism.

Forgive me if this was stated somewhere, but what was the nature of the original landlord's "permission" for people to paint up the building?  Were there legal documents signed by each and every artist (I highly doubt it)?  If so, were those agreements assigned to the new owner when the building sold?  If so, then the new landlord didn't do appropriate due diligence, and I'd say the artists are within their rights.

If not, and it was just a 'gentlemen's agreement', or some article in the paper where the landlord said "sure, I have no problem with it", or just word of mouth, or whatever... then I don't understand how/why the new landlord is required to uphold such a loose "agreement".

So, my option on who to side with is "it depends".
That's a word salad - and take it from me, I know word salad
I fear for the day when something happens on the right that is SO nuts that even Stadler says "That's crazy".
Quote from: Puppies_On_Acid
Remember the mark of a great vocalist is if TAC hates them with a special passion

Offline pg1067

  • Posts: 12440
  • Gender: Male
Re: Whose Side You On?
« Reply #37 on: February 15, 2018, 12:23:22 PM »
Forgive me if this was stated somewhere, but what was the nature of the original landlord's "permission" for people to paint up the building?  Were there legal documents signed by each and every artist (I highly doubt it)?  If so, were those agreements assigned to the new owner when the building sold?  If so, then the new landlord didn't do appropriate due diligence, and I'd say the artists are within their rights.

If not, and it was just a 'gentlemen's agreement', or some article in the paper where the landlord said "sure, I have no problem with it", or just word of mouth, or whatever... then I don't understand how/why the new landlord is required to uphold such a loose "agreement".

So, my option on who to side with is "it depends".

I'm sure there's a discussion of this in the very long court opinion to which I provided a link earlier in the thread.  However, the notion of the landlord's "permission" isn't legally relevant.  The applicable law (section 106A(a)(3)(B) of the Copyright Act) provides that the author of a "work of visual art" has the right to prevent destruction of "a work of recognized stature" and that, if such destruction occurs in violation of that right, the author is entitled to damages.  However, that right is subject to section 113(d)(1), which provides that if a work of visual art has been made part of a building such that removing the work will destroy it, the author's rights under section 106A(a)(3) do not apply if either of the following is true:  (1) the author consented to the installation of the work in the building before the effective date of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990; or (2) for a work installed in a building after the effective date, the author and owner entered into a written agreement that states that the work is subject to destruction as a result of its removal.

While I didn't read the entire factual discussion in the opinion, what I did read indicated that the art/graffiti was placed on the building after 1990, so the section 113(d) exception doesn't appear to have been applicable (I assume there was no written agreement between any owner and any of the artists/vandals that expressly provided for the removal/destruction of the art/graffiti).  One thing I didn't point out previously is that section 113(d)(2) provided the owner with a relatively simple way to remove the art/graffiti without liability, but the owner apparently failed to avail itself of that.
"There's a bass solo in a song called Metropolis where I do a bass solo."  John Myung

Offline SchecterShredder

  • Posts: 1597
  • Gender: Male
  • The 'other other' Rich
Re: Whose Side You On?
« Reply #38 on: February 16, 2018, 02:10:51 PM »
I can say with certainty that this ruling would not have happened in my city. The City of Edmonton in Alberta, Canada has graffiti by-laws that actually PUNISH property owners for having graffiti on their buildings. The city encourages its citizens to report graffiti on properties, which then creates a 72 hour deadline for the property owner to remove the graffiti or face fines. Definitely victim blaming, but there's a lot less graffiti around town since this law came into effect some 3 or 4 years ago.

As far as the article goes, the ruling is probably correct based on the law, but I'm on the side of property rights so I don't like it.

Offline Lonk

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6015
Re: Whose Side You On?
« Reply #39 on: February 26, 2018, 06:53:35 AM »
I remember this was all over the news here in New York when it happened. I personally side with the landlord, but I can see the artist side of it. This building was a big part of Long Island city (Queens really) and tourist would visit it, it was visible from passing trains, it was a big spot. But at the end of the day if you own the property, then you can get rid of it if you want. Now days New York is changing, and a lot of old, well recognized places have been destroyed, abandoned or converted into luxury buildings.
Vmadera has evolved into Lonk